In ethics, as in other disciplines, there is an expectation that systematic research efforts will increase our knowledge and generate compelling answers to the questions that are posed. This is presumably what motivates the authority ascribed to ethicists in public decision-making. Yet the discussion in ethics is pervaded by deep disagreement and there are few traces of significant convergence.
Ethics has for a long time been dominated by several competing traditions—consequentialism, contractualism, deontology, and virtue theory—and despite the emergence of more sophisticated methods, all of them still have competent advocates. It is possible, however, that this apparent stalemate conceals a type of convergence that occurs at a deeper level, in that the most modern and advanced versions of the traditions are increasingly becoming more similar. The claim that there is such “hidden” convergence is the hypothesis this project aims to investigate.
One task is to develop criteria of theory similarity that are needed to evaluate the hypothesis. Another is to apply them to developments that have been triggered by the ethical questions raised by future generations and coordination problems. Those issues pose grave challenges for all traditions and have thus prompted significant modifications of past theories. By assessing the hypothesis, we hope to shed new light both on the prospects for ethical theorizing and on the type of expertise that can reasonably be ascribed to ethicists.
